Mumbai Court August 1944 Judgments
Navroji N. Vakil Vs. Government of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom464; (1945)47BOMLR361
Divatia, J.1. In this case an issue was sent for a finding by the lower Court. The issue was whether the order of the Collector dated June 20, 1933, was illegal and ultra vires. The lower Court has, after taking evidence, returned the issue with the finding that the order was not illegal and ultra vires. If that finding is correct, the plaintiff's suit would be barred by limitation under Article 14 of the Indian Limitation Act. That is common ground. The only question is whether the finding of the lower Court is correct.2. The plaintiff's case was that the Government had wrongly issued a notice under Section 66 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code for levying enhanced non-agricultural assessment on the whole area of his land, viz. 14 acres and 14 gunthas, plus a fine of Rs. 50. It appears from the evidence, and it is conceded also, that out of this total area an area of 7 acres and 8 gunthas was used by the plaintiff for non-agricultural purposes. His case, however, was that the remaining a...
Tag this Judgment!In Re : Sarupchand Hukamchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom258; (1945)47BOMLR159
Harilal Kania, Kt., Acting C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act before its amendment in 1939. The assessees are a partnership firm doing money-lending business. Their firm is registered in British India. In the certificate of registration the principal place of business is stated to be Bombay. Their other place of business is stated to be Calcutta. It appears from the reference that the assessees do business at Indore also. The assessees contend that the Indore firm is the principal firm, and the principal place of business in British India is Bombay. For the assessment year 1935-36 they have been assessed to income-tax and super-tax for S.Y. 1991 (October 20, 1933 to November 7, 1934). In the total income assessed by the Income-tax Officer, which was ultimately reduced, a sum of Rs. 69,590 was treated as the assessee income in British India under Section 4(2) of the Act That was the excess of remittances by ...
Tag this Judgment!Shapurji Ruttonji Vs. Byramji Muncherji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom165; (1944)46BOMLR871
Harilal Kania, Kt., Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Blagden, arising out of insolvency proceedings adopted by the respondents against the appellants.2. Suit No. 1628 of 1940 was filed by the respondents in their individual names as beneficiaries, against four trustees which included the appellants. The respondents case was that the trustees had committed breaches of trust, had caused loss to the trust estate and they should therefore be removed from the office of trusteeship. There was a prayer for the trustees rendering accounts of the trust properties and for a decree ordering them to make good to the trust estate all loss and damage caused to the estate by their mismanagement and breaches of trust. On August 8, 1941, the Court passed a preliminary decree and made a decretal order of reference, under which the Court appointed three trustees, which included the two respondents. 'The Court ordered that the defendants do transfer and convey to the said n...
Tag this Judgment!Amratlal Amarchand Vs. Mulji Savchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom169; (1944)46BOMLR851
Harilal Kania, Kt., Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Coyajee. It arises out of mortgage transactions. On May 24, 1935, the Allahabad Bank, Limited, filed Suit No. 812 of 1935 to enforce the first mortgage on the Ballard Estate property executed by defendants Nos. 1 to 8 in their favour. Defendants No. 11 were the second mortgagees. Defendants Nos. 12 and 13 were the third mortgagees of that property, along wifti another property al Vikhroli, which was also their security for the amount advanced by them td the mortgagors. The third mortgage in favour of defendants Nos. 12 and 13 was dated April 10, 1030. The amount became due at the end of two years from the date of the mortgage. Defendants Nos. 12 and 13 filed their written statement on August 27, 1935. In that suit according to Order XXXIV, Rule 4, of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, a decree was passed in accordance with Form No. 9 of Appendix D on September 10, 1937. It was a consent decree by which th...
Tag this Judgment!Ardeshir Dadabhoy Baria Vs. Dadabhoy Rustomjee Baria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom395; (1945)47BOMLR287
Blagden, J.1. This was an originating summons having the principal object of determining the validity or otherwise of certain trusts in favour of persons unborn at the date of the creation thereof.2. The facts are not in dispute and so far as material they are as follows:On October 30, 1922, Dadabhai Dajibhai Baria (hereinafter called 'the settlor') had two sons Ardeshir and Rustomji (plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2), a grandson by Ardeshir called Rohinton born on September 10, 1917, and no other male issue.By an indenture of that date (hereinafter called 'the settlement') he conveyed certain property of which, it was recited, he was the full owner (and there is no evidence or allegation that he was anything less) to himself and plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 as trustees upon the following trusts:1. To collect the income thereof.2. To pay outgoings including insurance premia.3. To pay for repairs.4. To pay during the settlor's life one-third of the net residue of the trust income to the settlor, one-...
Tag this Judgment!Sarupchand Hukamchand, in Re.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1944
Reported in: [1945]13ITR245(Bom)
KANIA, AG. C.J. - This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66 (2), Income-tax Act, before its amendment in 1939. The assessee are a partnership firm doing money-lending business. Their firm is registered in British India. If the certificate of registration the principal place of business is stated to be Bombay. Their other place of business is stated to be Calcutta. It appears from the reference that the assesses do business at Indore also. The assessee contend that the Indore firm is the principal firm, and the principal place of business in British India is Bombay. For the assessment year 1935-36 they have been assessed to income-tax and supertax for Samvat year 1991 (20th October 1933 to 7th November 1934). In the total income assessed by the Income-tax Officer, which was ultimately reduced, a sum of Rs. 69,590 was treated as the assessees income in British India under Section 4 (2) of the Act. That was the excess of remittances by the Indore firm to ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Abdul Wahab Kamruddin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom110; (1944)46BOMLR818
Divatia, J.1. The accused in this case was put up for his trial under Section 302. of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for the offence of murder by intentionally causing the death of one Balwantsing. On 'account of the nature of the medical evidence as to the injuries on the deceased, I directed the jury that if they were of the opinion that the accused inflicted the injuries, it would be open to them to return a verdict of murder or of the lesser offences of culpable homicide not amounting to murder or even grievous hurt with or without a dangerous weapon. In fact, I directed them that the injuries would not, on the medical evidence, be regarded as sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death as the prosecution counsel also conceded, but may be regarded such as to reduce the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder or grievous hurt, and in that case I specifically asked the jury to return a verdict on any of these two lesser offences. The jury brought in unanimou...
Tag this Judgment!Hirji Virji Jangbari Vs. the Government of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom348; (1945)47BOMLR327
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a reference made by the Taxing Officer under Section 5 of the Court-fees Act. Under the provisions of Rule 75A of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, Plot No. 113 in the Sion-Matunga Estate belonging to the appellant was acquired by Government for and on behalf of the Defence Authorities. As no agreement could be arrived at between the claimant and the Government with regard to the amount of compensation payable, the Government of Bombay appointed Mr. M. S. Noronha, Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, as arbitrator under Section 19 (1)(b) of the Defence of India Act, 1939,. to determine the amount of compensation payable to the claimant. The arbitrator fixed the amount payable to him at Rs. 45,355. The claimant being dissatisfied with this amount filed an appeal in which he claimed a further sum of Rs. 47,896-8-0 in addition to the amount awarded to him by the arbitrator.2. The question referred for my decision is whether the appellant should pay ad...
Tag this Judgment!T.H. Vakil Vs. Bombay Presidency Radio Club Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom475; (1945)47BOMLR428
Blagden, J.1. This is a suit and motion brought by a member of the Bombay Presidency Radio Club, Ltd., against the club asking for a declaration that a ruling given by the chairman of the club at its last annual general meeting was invalid and for consequential relief. The material facts are not in, dispute and it has been agreed that the hearing of the motion may be treated as the trial of the suit.2. What happened was this. The general meeting was held on the 19th of last month at 6 p.m. pursuant to a notice dated June 14. One item on the agenda contained in the notice was :-'to receive the report of the Managing Committee and the audited balance sheet as at December 31, 1943, and the Income and Expenditure Account for the year ended December 31, 1943, and to approve and adopt the same'. At the meeting, the Chairman moved, himself, 'that the report of the Managing Committee and the audited balance sheet as at December 31, 1943, and the Income and Expenditure Account for the year ende...
Tag this Judgment!Ramabai Govind Vs. Anant Daji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom338; (1945)47BOMLR447
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings for the execution of a partition decree obtained by the respondent's father Daji Chimnaji against his brother Dhondi Chimnaji and his son Govind Dhondi on January 13, 1928, in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmednagar. The decree declared that the brothers Daji and Dhondi had each a half share in the family property consisting of lands, houses, moveables and outstandings. It directed Under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the lands, which were assessed to the payment of revenue to the Crown, should be partitioned by the Collector or any gazetted subordinate of the Collector deputed by him in that behalf, and for partition of the rest of the property a Commissioner was appointed. On receipt of the Commissioner's report, the decree was made final on July 29, 1930, regarding all the property excepting the lands. There was an appeal to this Court against the final decree in respect of accounts only, and it w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »